Supreme Court upholds Arizona redistricting in challenge to population variations among districts
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to an Arizona redistricting plan that had contended variations in legislative district populations were unconstitutional because they were intended to help the Democratic Party.
The court ruled unanimously in an opinion (PDF) by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who cited findings that the population differences reflected efforts to obtain Justice Department preclearance under the Voting Rights Act. The aim was to enhance minority voting strength to make it possible for minorities to elect their preferred candidates of choice in 10 “ability to elect” districts, according to Breyer.
The Arizona plan had a total population deviation among districts of 8.8 percent.
Although the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause requires states to make a good-faith effort to create districts of nearly equal population, the Constitution “does not demand mathematical perfection,” Breyer said.
Minor population deviations of less than 10 percent between legislative districts do not prove discrimination absent a showing it was the result of illegitimate reapportionment factors, Breyer said. The standard requires a showing it was “more probable than not” that the illegitimate factors were the predominant motivation for the deviations.
At the time Arizona created the plan in 2010, Breyer pointed out, it was still subject to preclearance requirements. Challengers had cited Shelby County v. Holder, the 2013 Supreme Court case striking down the formula to determine which jurisdictions have to obtain preclearance. “At the time,” Breyer said, “Arizona was subject to the Voting Rights Act, and we have never suggested the contrary.”
The case is Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.
